I think I get the phrase, but it also seems to assume Nazis to be way more subtle and sophisticated than they are in real life. As if they slowly infiltrated society through complicated deceit...
I think I get the phrase, but it also seems to assume Nazis to be way more subtle and sophisticated than they are in real life. As if they slowly infiltrated society through complicated deceit when historically their manipulation is way more violent and forceful.
Some fascists/nazis are indeed more subtle, despite the overt ones we see from time to time. Cryptofascists are a thing and extreme metal, for one example, unfortunately has quite a few of them.
Some fascists/nazis are indeed more subtle, despite the overt ones we see from time to time. Cryptofascists are a thing and extreme metal, for one example, unfortunately has quite a few of them.
When you’re driven by ideology, all tactics are on the table, and there are no rules. You start with talks over after dinner drinks and end at genocide.
When you’re driven by ideology, all tactics are on the table, and there are no rules. You start with talks over after dinner drinks and end at genocide.
What you’re suggesting is guilt by association based off a projection, not guilt by crimes actually committed. Plenty of people associate with people they don’t like or agree with because of some...
What you’re suggesting is guilt by association based off a projection, not guilt by crimes actually committed. Plenty of people associate with people they don’t like or agree with because of some other value they provide.
OK, sure. As a general rule sometimes there is a place for sitting down with those of differing political alignment. The Conservatives/Republicans/whatever your local flavour is called, hateful...
Exemplary
OK, sure. As a general rule sometimes there is a place for sitting down with those of differing political alignment. The Conservatives/Republicans/whatever your local flavour is called, hateful and shortsighted and bigoted to whatever degree as they might be, sometimes need to be dealt with for the greater good. And yes, sometimes it's helpful to see other people's points of view, even if those views might be shitty. So yes, fine. Not everyone sitting at the dickhead table is necessarily a dickhead.
But the thing is, there's a point where things change. Where general rules break down, because you've crossed the dickhead event horizon into a singularity of shittiness. One of those points is when you're talking about actual, swastika-wearing, heil-hitlering actual fucking Nazis, and at that point no. There is no mitigating condition which makes sitting down with them OK. Their colours are already firmly nailed to the mast. You can only take one of two positions. Anti-Nazi, or pro-Nazi (either explicitly or tacitly).
I get what you're saying, but there's kind of a lot of mitigating conditions. For example, if your parents are Nazis, and you legally have to sit at a table with them, or you're Finland in WW2,...
I get what you're saying, but there's kind of a lot of mitigating conditions. For example, if your parents are Nazis, and you legally have to sit at a table with them, or you're Finland in WW2, and the alternative is being invaded by the USSR again.
I can think of quite a few reasons why someone might want to or have to sit down at a table with Nazis while they find their views abhorrent. I think it's rare that anything in life is perfectly black and white.
And how do you feel about Vichy France? What degree of collaboration is the point at which there aren't "mitigating conditions", they're just going along with the Nazis? Practically, the fact that...
And how do you feel about Vichy France? What degree of collaboration is the point at which there aren't "mitigating conditions", they're just going along with the Nazis?
Practically, the fact that you're trying to find soft justifications for why people sitting down with literal Nazis aren't that bad is really concerning.
Moderate conservatives enabling, cooperating with, or otherwise tolerating Nazis in order to secure a political benefit is historically speaking exactly how Nazis came to power.
Moderate conservatives enabling, cooperating with, or otherwise tolerating Nazis in order to secure a political benefit is historically speaking exactly how Nazis came to power.
The presence of the individuals has been a persistent issue at CPAC, and in previous years, conference organizers have ejected well known nazis and white supremacists, such as Nick Fuentes.
But this year, racist conspiracy theorists didn’t meet any perceptible resistance at the conference where Donald Trump has been the keynote speaker since 2017.
At the Young Republican mixer Friday evening a group of Nazis, who openly identified as national socialists, mingled with mainstream conservative personalities, including some from Turning Point USA, and discussed race science and antisemitic conspiracy theories.
The question then becomes, issue or feature? You either take a "No Nazi stance" or don't. They've chosen not to and, by proxy, accepted their presence. It's one thing to say "Hey, they showed up...
The presence of the individuals has been a persistent issue at CPAC
The question then becomes, issue or feature?
You either take a "No Nazi stance" or don't. They've chosen not to and, by proxy, accepted their presence. It's one thing to say "Hey, they showed up and kept to themselves" but if they're down on the floor talking about "the Jews" and not getting kicked out...
There's an important historical story here on the roots of National Socialism (a/k/a Nazism), and the origin of the aphorism, "Antisemitism is the socialism of fools." In 1890's Austria,...
There's an important historical story here on the roots of National Socialism (a/k/a Nazism), and the origin of the aphorism, "Antisemitism is the socialism of fools."
In 1890's Austria, referencing a demagogic member of the Parliament, Karl Lüger:
To expand his electoral base and counter the rise of Austrian social democracy, Lüger developed a political programme in alliance with Aloys Prinz von und zu Liechtenstein, Catholic theologians, social-conservative politicians and other ‘worthies’ of the Austrian establishment.
The resulting programme was a mixture of German nationalism, Catholic social teachings, appeals to a specifically Catholic-Austrian identity, basic social security policies, and antisemitism (which scapegoated Jews for the economic crisis faced by sections of the Austrian petty bourgeoisie).
The point is made that antisemitism is a diversionary tactic to safeguard the interests of the proper nation-loving, Christian capitalists. The rest of the piece is going to sound very, very familiar, up to and including the modern left substitution of Anti-Zionism for generalized anti-imperialism.
From the article you linked, towards the end: This article is complicated and long, touching on many things I have not encountered before, as well as seeming somewhat meandering. So I feel it's...
From the article you linked, towards the end:
As early as 1969 the Austrian-Jewish Holocaust survivor Jean Amery – and Amery may not have been the first to have done so – employed the truncated version of Kronawetter’s expression in an article criticising the antisemitism which he saw beneath the surface of ‘anti-Zionism’ and ‘anti-Israelism’.
“The classic phenomenon of antisemitism is taking on a contemporary form. The new concepts emerged right after the Six Day War and have gradually made headway: … anti-Israelism, anti-Zionism, both in purest harmony with the antisemitism of times past.
[...]
And therein lies the real foolishness. Not the misattribution of Kronawetter’s expression to Bebel. Nor the misunderstanding of how the term was used 120 years ago. But the fact that there are still sections of the left where the [village idiot] would feel at home.
This article is complicated and long, touching on many things I have not encountered before, as well as seeming somewhat meandering. So I feel it's not terribly unlikely that I may have misunderstood it, especially given that it is late at time of writing and I don't have the time to investigate more thoroughly. All the same, this article – and you by extension? – appear to be making the argument that modern-day leftist anti-Zionism is itself antisemitic. Is this the case?
I ask because I rather strongly disagree with it if so; while I could find it easy to believe that earlier anti-Zionist sentiment was instead used as a tool for Nazis and their ilk to mask their true beliefs (as I do not know much about anti-Zionism in this time period), and I understand that today's pro-Palestinian discourse is occasionally infested with alt-right shitbags (usually briefly before they're kicked out), I don't know a single leftist who I could even remotely describe as an antisemite in any sense of the word. They hate the actions of the IDF, not Jews, and they do not even compare the two, let alone consider them identical or related.
Given recent Tildes history, I hope you'll forgive me for suspecting bad faith in your choice to expand on that portion of the article. I didn't intend to hijack a topic about actual Nazism in...
Given recent Tildes history, I hope you'll forgive me for suspecting bad faith in your choice to expand on that portion of the article.
I didn't intend to hijack a topic about actual Nazism in current US politics with a digression on anti-Zionism, and I apologize to all concerned if that transpires. My personal position is that there's been plenty of evil rhetoric on all sides of any Israel-Palestine related debate, I stand for fundamental human rights for all people, and I'm choosing not to engage further here.
If you are genuinely interested, please note that Workers' Liberty is a British socialist publication, and the contemporaneous political background of the portion of the article you selected is discussed in more detail here.
No, because as awful as post-Tea Party, post-Trump CPAC has been, they used to at the very least make a token effort to eject out-and-proud neo-Nazis. Now they've got badges and are circulating...
No, because as awful as post-Tea Party, post-Trump CPAC has been, they used to at the very least make a token effort to eject out-and-proud neo-Nazis. Now they've got badges and are circulating openly racist rhetoric inside the convention unopposed.
Reminds me of the comment "if you have ten people at a table and one is a Nazi, you have ten Nazis"
Reminds me of this one: "if people are holding Nazi flags at a rally, and they aren't being kicked out, you're at a Nazi rally"
I think I get the phrase, but it also seems to assume Nazis to be way more subtle and sophisticated than they are in real life. As if they slowly infiltrated society through complicated deceit when historically their manipulation is way more violent and forceful.
I assume there's a deeper meaning that eludes me.
The 9 people tolerating the Nazi are guilty by association.
Oh yeah that makes total sense for our current historical context. Thanks for explaining.
Some fascists/nazis are indeed more subtle, despite the overt ones we see from time to time. Cryptofascists are a thing and extreme metal, for one example, unfortunately has quite a few of them.
When you’re driven by ideology, all tactics are on the table, and there are no rules. You start with talks over after dinner drinks and end at genocide.
What you’re suggesting is guilt by association based off a projection, not guilt by crimes actually committed. Plenty of people associate with people they don’t like or agree with because of some other value they provide.
OK, sure. As a general rule sometimes there is a place for sitting down with those of differing political alignment. The Conservatives/Republicans/whatever your local flavour is called, hateful and shortsighted and bigoted to whatever degree as they might be, sometimes need to be dealt with for the greater good. And yes, sometimes it's helpful to see other people's points of view, even if those views might be shitty. So yes, fine. Not everyone sitting at the dickhead table is necessarily a dickhead.
But the thing is, there's a point where things change. Where general rules break down, because you've crossed the dickhead event horizon into a singularity of shittiness. One of those points is when you're talking about actual, swastika-wearing, heil-hitlering actual fucking Nazis, and at that point no. There is no mitigating condition which makes sitting down with them OK. Their colours are already firmly nailed to the mast. You can only take one of two positions. Anti-Nazi, or pro-Nazi (either explicitly or tacitly).
I get what you're saying, but there's kind of a lot of mitigating conditions. For example, if your parents are Nazis, and you legally have to sit at a table with them, or you're Finland in WW2, and the alternative is being invaded by the USSR again.
I can think of quite a few reasons why someone might want to or have to sit down at a table with Nazis while they find their views abhorrent. I think it's rare that anything in life is perfectly black and white.
And how do you feel about Vichy France? What degree of collaboration is the point at which there aren't "mitigating conditions", they're just going along with the Nazis?
Practically, the fact that you're trying to find soft justifications for why people sitting down with literal Nazis aren't that bad is really concerning.
You would do well not to equivocate tolerance of different opinions, with tolerance of literal Nazis.
There is zero room for tolerance of Nazis.
No, tolerating Nazism is Nazism.
Moderate conservatives enabling, cooperating with, or otherwise tolerating Nazis in order to secure a political benefit is historically speaking exactly how Nazis came to power.
I remember 10-15 years ago how conservatives would mock liberals for calling them Nazis.
They still do. They're just more practiced at doublethink these days.
The question then becomes, issue or feature?
You either take a "No Nazi stance" or don't. They've chosen not to and, by proxy, accepted their presence. It's one thing to say "Hey, they showed up and kept to themselves" but if they're down on the floor talking about "the Jews" and not getting kicked out...
Yeah, they're welcomed there.
There's an important historical story here on the roots of National Socialism (a/k/a Nazism), and the origin of the aphorism, "Antisemitism is the socialism of fools."
In 1890's Austria, referencing a demagogic member of the Parliament, Karl Lüger:
The point is made that antisemitism is a diversionary tactic to safeguard the interests of the proper nation-loving, Christian capitalists. The rest of the piece is going to sound very, very familiar, up to and including the modern left substitution of Anti-Zionism for generalized anti-imperialism.
From the article you linked, towards the end:
This article is complicated and long, touching on many things I have not encountered before, as well as seeming somewhat meandering. So I feel it's not terribly unlikely that I may have misunderstood it, especially given that it is late at time of writing and I don't have the time to investigate more thoroughly. All the same, this article – and you by extension? – appear to be making the argument that modern-day leftist anti-Zionism is itself antisemitic. Is this the case?
I ask because I rather strongly disagree with it if so; while I could find it easy to believe that earlier anti-Zionist sentiment was instead used as a tool for Nazis and their ilk to mask their true beliefs (as I do not know much about anti-Zionism in this time period), and I understand that today's pro-Palestinian discourse is occasionally infested with alt-right shitbags (usually briefly before they're kicked out), I don't know a single leftist who I could even remotely describe as an antisemite in any sense of the word. They hate the actions of the IDF, not Jews, and they do not even compare the two, let alone consider them identical or related.
Given recent Tildes history, I hope you'll forgive me for suspecting bad faith in your choice to expand on that portion of the article.
I didn't intend to hijack a topic about actual Nazism in current US politics with a digression on anti-Zionism, and I apologize to all concerned if that transpires. My personal position is that there's been plenty of evil rhetoric on all sides of any Israel-Palestine related debate, I stand for fundamental human rights for all people, and I'm choosing not to engage further here.
If you are genuinely interested, please note that Workers' Liberty is a British socialist publication, and the contemporaneous political background of the portion of the article you selected is discussed in more detail here.
What is the recent Tildes history on that topic?
So it's a typical CPAC then.
No, because as awful as post-Tea Party, post-Trump CPAC has been, they used to at the very least make a token effort to eject out-and-proud neo-Nazis. Now they've got badges and are circulating openly racist rhetoric inside the convention unopposed.
Yet they used Nazi imagery in the past. They've just decided they can come out of the Nazi closet instead of pretending.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/01/cpac-stage-nazi-symbol-hyatt/
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN2AT17T/
Of course. Now they aren't even trying to even do a show of hiding it.